Podcast Summary
Effective institutions and simplifying complexities: Mercury simplifies complex financial workflows for businesses, Wise eliminates hidden fees for international money transfers, and Yuval Levin emphasizes the importance of understanding conservative ethics and institutions' ability to overcome market incentives.
Simplicity and effective institutions are key to success in business and politics. Mercury, a financial service provider, emphasizes the importance of simplifying complex financial workflows for businesses, allowing them to focus and perform at their best. Wise, a money transfer service, simplifies international money management by eliminating hidden fees and providing real-time currency exchange rates. Yuval Levin, a director at the American Enterprise Institute, discusses the importance of understanding the conservative mindset or ethic, which can differ from the conservative ideology or movement. He also emphasizes the importance of institutions and their ability to overcome market incentives. Both Mercury and Wise demonstrate the power of simplifying complex processes, while Yuval's insights highlight the importance of understanding the nuances of ideologies and ethics. Whether in business or politics, effective institutions and a clear focus on simplifying complexities are essential for success.
Conservatives believe in shaping individuals for freedom: Conservatives see the role of institutions, politics, and culture as shaping individuals into responsible citizens, ultimately leading to freedom, contrasting the left's view of liberation from societal oppression.
According to Yuval Levin, the conservative perspective holds that human beings are imperfect and require moral and social formation for eventual freedom. Institutions, politics, and culture serve this purpose by shaping individuals into responsible citizens, rather than liberating them from oppressive power relations. This contrasts with the left's view that human beings are born just fine and society is the source of oppression, requiring liberation for true freedom. Understanding these differing premises can lead to better dialogue and understanding between political sides, despite heated disagreements. However, it's important to note that not all individuals who identify as conservatives embody the principles of personal responsibility and rectitude that come with this perspective. The political landscape is complex, and both sides can benefit from self-reflection and understanding.
Understanding the nuances of conservative ideologies: Not all conservatives are solely driven by power struggles, but recognizing the desire to preserve power is essential to understanding their motivations.
While there are various interpretations of conservatism and the political right, it is essential to recognize that not all conservatives hold the same motivations or goals. Some conservatives may focus on preserving specific institutions or values, while others may prioritize retaining existing power structures. Corey Robin's book, "The Reactionary Mind," argues that conservatism is inherently reactionary and driven by a desire to preserve power. However, not all conservatives may explicitly recognize their actions as part of a power struggle. Instead, they may genuinely believe they are acting in the best interests of society. It is crucial to understand the nuances of different conservative ideologies and avoid oversimplifying them as solely driven by power struggles. Additionally, it is important to acknowledge that both the left and right have their problematic aspects and that there are honorable forms of partisan politics that exist despite the disappointments of current times.
Political Climate: Fear, Defensiveness, and Ideological Divides: The current political climate is marked by fear, defensiveness, and ideological divides, hindering productive dialogue and progress.
Our current political climate is characterized by intense fear and a belief that the other side is on the verge of winning everything. Both sides see this as a moment-to-moment, second-to-second fight for survival. This short-term thinking has led to a lack of civility and an inability to consider long-term problems. People are defensive and offensive in their disagreements, and some hold beliefs that are objectively racist or offensive. The divide can be seen as ideological (left to right) and temperamental (defensive to offensive). Older generations and demographic concerns also play a role in shaping the political landscape. It's crucial to understand that each side perceives the other as a threat, leading to a sense of panic and alarm. This mindset hinders productive dialogue and progress.
Understanding Political Complexities: Ideologies vs Temperament: Ideologies and temperament are both crucial factors in politics, shaping the direction and pace of societal change. Trump's unique combination of reactionary tendencies and unconventional approach adds to the complexity, but it's important not to overlook the ongoing ideological and temperamental debates within each party.
While political ideologies help define the direction and speed of societal change, they don't fully capture the complexities of individual leaders or their parties. Temperament, or the approach to change and society, is another crucial factor. For instance, Trump, despite his reactionary tendencies, might not be ideologically conservative. Biden, a soft progressive, could have a somewhat conservative temperament. These complexities have long existed in politics, with parties often divided on both the ideological "which way" and the temperamental "how fast" questions. Trump's presence adds to the confusion, but it's essential not to let him overshadow the underlying left-right debate and the temperamental differences within each party.
A revival of ideologies in politics with a collision of the radical Catholic right and socialist left: This period in politics is questioning fundamental societal values and debating how to be a just society, with conservatives focusing on market economy vs social/moral commitments and socialists considering various forms of socialism.
We are currently experiencing a revival of ideologies in politics, with a distinct collision of ideologies, be it the radical Catholic right or the socialist left. This period is different from the early 21st century when the underlying technologies and incentives were pushing towards a consensus around liberalism. Now, we are asking fundamental questions about how to be a just society. While this is essential, it's important to remember that the world did not begin in 1989, and there's a long tradition of debating these questions. On the right, there's an ongoing debate about whether conservatism should be oriented around market economy commitments or social and moral commitments. This is an old debate that has been had on the right for a long time and could benefit from learning from earlier iterations of itself. For young people inclined towards socialism, it's crucial to understand that there are valid debates on both sides, and the conservative perspective also has a rich history and valuable insights to offer.
Historical roots of economic debates: Understanding historical context is crucial for informed economic debates, emphasizing common ground for human flourishing and market economy's role in free societies.
The current debates around economic systems, specifically the tension between capitalism and socialism, have deep historical roots and are not just about economic policies but also moral principles. Even the concept of supply side economics, which originated as a response to libertarianism, has evolved and been embraced by some on the right as a resistance to extreme free-market ideologies. The speaker argues that it's essential to understand the history of these arguments and consider the common ground between left and right regarding human flourishing and enabling communities to thrive. However, they also believe that a market economy is the best way to organize economic life for a free society to function effectively. Additionally, the speaker challenges the individualistic perspective of classical liberal theories and emphasizes the significance of institutions in American society, which has always been more communal and oriented by moral priorities than these theories suggest.
Institutions: The Unsung Heroes of a Functioning Society: Politics needs to identify and address the root cause of institutional breakdown instead of just focusing on symptoms, which is often a lack of legitimacy and commitment.
Institutions, which give shape to our common life through rules, practices, and habits, are crucial for a functioning society. However, our political and social theories often overlook their importance. When institutions break down, it can lead to a crisis, but the root cause is often overlooked as we focus on other societal pressures. The author argues that our politics tends to give people what they ask for, but if they're not asking for the right thing, our politics needs to step in and help them identify the real problem. In the medical analogy given, a doctor doesn't just give a patient more sleep when they complain of fatigue, they try to identify the underlying cause. Similarly, in politics, we need to look beyond the symptoms of institutional breakdown and address the root cause, which is often a lack of legitimacy and commitment to our institutions. Our politics is currently filled with demolition crews, but we cannot function without these institutions, and we need to rebuild trust and commitment to them.
Political and cultural factors behind societal unrest: Economic issues don't fully explain societal unrest. Deeper cultural and political factors involve polarized identities and power instability. Bridging the divide and building a more inclusive society may be necessary.
While economic issues are a part of the current societal unrest, they do not fully explain the populism, alienation, and isolation we see in our society. The problem runs deeper, involving cultural and political factors. The polarization of political identities and the instability of power between coalitions has led to a tense and antagonistic climate. Strengthening institutions alone may not be enough to address this issue. Instead, finding a way to bridge the divide between polarized identities and building a more inclusive and unified society may be necessary.
Institutions as performative platforms: Institutions like Congress and political parties have shifted from shaping actions to being stages for members' displays, leading to increased polarization and a lack of accommodation.
The political parties and institutions, such as Congress, have shifted from being formative entities that shape the actions of their members to being performative platforms where members display their actions. This change has resulted in increased polarization and a lack of accommodation between differing sides. The parties, once powerful institutions that moderated extremism and built broad coalitions, have been weakened by campaign finance reforms and changes in political culture. As a result, they no longer play the role of moderating polarizing forces and instead have become stages for narcissistic displays. Similarly, Congress, which was designed to compel accommodation, has become a performative stage where members primarily complain about the institution rather than finding common ground. To address this issue, it's essential to recognize the institutional forces at play and work to reform these institutions to better manage the incentives driving polarization. While some argue that technology, ideology, and demographic conditions are the primary causes of this shift, others contend that the performative nature of institutions is a downstream effect of these larger conditions. Regardless, addressing the institutional weaknesses could help mitigate the polarization and promote accommodation.
Institutional issues shaping modern politics in Congress: Changes since the 90s, campaign finance, and cultural forces have led to performative behavior in Congress. Institutional reforms, such as changes to the budget process, could help prioritize legislative work.
The current state of politics in Congress can be attributed to institutional issues, including changes in Congress since the 90s, campaign finance, and cultural forces. These factors have created an environment where performative behavior is prioritized over traditional legislative work. However, there are ways to change the rules and the institution itself to allow for more legislative work and less performative behavior. For example, changes to the budget process could give House members more responsibilities and ownership, making them more invested in their work. While cultural change is also important, focusing on institutional reform offers a more immediate way to make a difference. Additionally, the performative nature of journalism has also affected trust in the institution, but there is power in institutions that shape their members and provide a sense of authority. Understanding these institutional issues is crucial for finding solutions and pushing back against the current state of politics.
Institutions and the loss of legitimacy in journalism: In the era of endless choices, journalistic institutions struggle to uphold their responsibility to mediate and serve as guardians of legitimacy, leading to a loss of expertise and authority as individuals express unmediated opinions on social media. Institutions must strike a balance and take steps to preserve their authority.
The current state of institutions, particularly in the realm of journalism, is a result of individuals and organizations responding to incentives in a collective action problem. The shift from monopolistic business models to a war for attention in an era of endless choices has led to a loss of legitimacy and expertise, as institutions fail to uphold their responsibility to mediate and serve as guardians of that legitimacy. The individual pride in humility and fact-based reporting that journalism once instilled is being thrown away through unmediated expression of opinions on social media. The New York Times, for example, should not allow its journalists to use Twitter, as the costs of shredding authority and legitimacy outweigh the benefits. It's important for institutions to strike a balance and take steps to push back against these incentives and preserve their authority.
The erosion of mediation and integrity in journalism and politics: The relentless pursuit of efficiency and immediacy in journalism and politics has weakened their power and integrity, leading to public dissatisfaction. Balancing efficiency and integrity is crucial for the health and effectiveness of these institutions.
The relentless pursuit of efficiency and immediacy in various institutions, including journalism and politics, has led to a weakening of their power and integrity. This trend, driven in part by market forces and the proliferation of new information, has made it increasingly difficult for institutions to act as mediators and make judgment calls that serve the greater good. The speaker argues that this erosion of mediation and integrity is a major source of public dissatisfaction with these institutions. While the market for integrity may not be strong enough to completely counteract the incentives to tweet or sensationalize, there is a need for a renewed focus on the importance of mediation and the role it plays in a free society. Ultimately, the speaker suggests that finding a balance between efficiency and integrity is crucial for the health and effectiveness of these institutions.
Transparency in politics: A double-edged sword: Excessive transparency in political institutions can hinder effective decision-making and collaboration, but arguments against it face resistance in a climate valuing absolute transparency. Weakened institutions like political parties exacerbate the issue, leading to a lack of trust and legitimacy, hindering decision-making and regaining public trust.
Transparency in political institutions, while desirable in many ways, can also hinder effective decision-making and collaboration. For instance, excessive transparency in Congress can make committee work less effective due to the constant need for partisan performances. However, making arguments against excessive transparency is a challenging task in our political climate, which values absolute transparency. This issue becomes more complex when considering the weakening of institutions like political parties. The 2016 primaries provide an example of how parties, which have significant power and leverage, struggled to intervene and maintain control, ultimately leading to a lack of trust and legitimacy. This lack of trust, in turn, hinders institutions' ability to make decisions and regain public trust. It's a catch-22 situation where institutions need more trust to make decisions that could increase trust but lack the public authority to do so effectively. It's essential for those in power to recognize their role as insiders with responsibility rather than outsiders without power to address these collective action problems.
The role of transparency in politics and technology: Technology brings challenges to political transparency, but we have the power to adapt and shape the rules and norms for constructive solutions.
The role of transparency in politics and its relationship with technology is a complex issue. While technology may make things more transparent, it also brings new challenges. The outsider status of politicians like Donald Trump, fueled by social media and alternative communication channels, can make it difficult for traditional institutions like political parties to maintain control. However, it's not all doom and gloom. History shows that institutions can adapt and evolve, and we have the power to shape the rules and norms around technology use in politics. For example, American political journalism in the early republic faced similar challenges to today's media landscape, but over time, it became more professionalized and less partisan. Ultimately, we need to actively engage with these issues and work towards constructive solutions to ensure transparency and accountability in our political system.
How to be more responsible in politics: Individuals have the power to make small, incremental steps towards more responsible actions in politics. Members of Congress are open to reforms and appealing to both members and the electorate for a more productive legislative process.
While the current state of politics being heavily influenced by social media is a concern, there is hope for change through individual and institutional responsibility. The speaker emphasizes the importance of asking the question "given my role here, how should I behave?" and making small, incremental steps towards more responsible actions. The speaker also suggests that members of Congress, in particular, are open to reforms that would make the legislative process more tolerable and productive, appealing to both members and the electorate. Ultimately, the solution to the problem of irresponsibility lies not with others but with each of us, and the speaker's book aims to persuade individuals to take those steps towards renewal.
Members of Congress act as expressions of party and institutional forces: Members of Congress may lack the perspective and motivation to institute significant reforms due to limited experience and acceptance of the status quo
Members of Congress often act as expressions of party and institutional forces rather than individual actors, and they may lack the perspective and motivation to institute significant reforms due to their limited experience with alternative ways of operating and a deep-rooted acceptance of the status quo. The speaker emphasizes that members of Congress could bring about change, such as reforming the budget process or forcing votes on important legislation, but these ideas may not be top of mind for them. The speaker's own experience working on Capitol Hill in the late 1990s highlights the fact that many members have never seen Congress function differently, and they may lack the dissatisfaction and leadership changes necessary to drive reforms. The speaker's observations offer a nuanced perspective on the challenges of effecting change in Congress and the complex interplay between individual and institutional forces.
Generational shift in politics: Older politicians have different views, younger generations desire change, and it takes time but believing in change is important. Three books offer insights: 'Democracy in America', 'The Quest for Community', and the speaker's own book.
Generational change is a significant factor in our current political landscape. The older baby boomers, who have held power for a long time, have certain views and assumptions that are different from younger generations. For instance, among Republican senators in their forties and fifties, there is a growing dissatisfaction with the current situation and a desire to do things differently. This generational shift is evident among young people on both the left and the right. While it's impossible to predict exactly how this change will manifest, it's clear that it will make a difference. Another insight is that change takes time, but it's important to fill that time with the belief that change is possible. Three books that can provide valuable insights into our current political situation and the importance of community in a free society are "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Tocqueville, "The Quest for Community" by Robert Nisbet, and the speaker's own book. These classics offer wisdom about our kind of situation and time, and they remain relevant to our current political landscape.
The formative role of politics in shaping our understanding of complex issues: Exploring political ideas and texts can help us make sense of intricate social and political questions, as emphasized by authors like Yuval Levin and George F. Will.
Key takeaway from this conversation between Ezra Klein and Yuval Levin is the formative role of politics in shaping our perspectives and understanding of complex social and political issues. Yuval Levin's book, "Statecraft to Soulcraft," which he highly recommends, emphasizes this idea. Written in 1953, another influential book for Ezra was George F. Will's "Statecraft as Soulcraft." Both authors argue that recognizing the formative nature of politics can help us make sense of intricate social and political questions. Levin's latest book, "A Time to Build," continues to explore these themes. Overall, this conversation underscores the importance of engaging with political ideas and texts to gain a deeper understanding of the world around us. If you're interested in these topics, be sure to preorder Ezra Klein's book, "Why We're Polarized," and check out the tour dates at whywe'repolarized.com.
